The Groundwork For Idealism Part V

Implications of Last POst(s)

The last post was the first true post of this series. Parts I-III of this series were nothing more than stepping stones required in order to facilitate an adequate-enough comprehension of Part IV. Even so, part IV was a purely technical, highly definitional, jargon-heavy text, and was, therefore, not likely to provide a lot of clarity on the precise implications of my non-dual idealism.

In this post, my intention is to clarify the immediate implications of the last post, namely by introducing an updated diagram of my ontological system. This new diagram will be used as a heuristic for explaining everything that I have argued for over the course of parts I-III, and will be instrumental in clarifying the implications of part IV.

In other words, I will be using an updated diagram to explain how the PSR and the POP connect to parts I-III.

New Diagram of My Ontological System

How it Connects to Part I

In part I, I argued for the existence of a pure subjectivity (a pure consciousness, a pure awareness) which stands independent of Space and Time.

That “pure subjectivity,” is represented in this diagram by the entity of “Pure Mind.” That is to say, in this diagram, “Pure Mind,” represents a reality which exists independent of Space and Time, and hence is eternal and immutable.

The only reason, however, for postulating the existence of a Spaceless, Timeless, “pure subjectivity” was because of two things: 1. the existence of the Mind, and 2. the axiom(s) which defined Space and Time as nothing more than constructs of the Mind.

But what is the Mind? In part I, I implicitly defined the Mind as the a function of self-awareness. In other words, the Mind is defined as self-objectifying subjectivity and/or self-awareness. It is the thing which says to itself “I know,” and then says to itself “I know that I know,” and then says to itself “I know, that I know, that I know,” and so on ad infinitum, in endless self-referential appeal. Put simply, the Mind is the most obvious feature about existence–it is the thing that says “I think, therefore I am.” The Mind is the “I.” The “I” is awareness, specifically self-awareness, otherwise it couldn’t name itself as “I.”

The entire purpose of part I was to demonstrate the following conclusion: what we call “Mind,” is fundamentally nothing more than a presupposition of an underlying awareness. That is to say, there can be no “I think, therefore I am” to name itself an “I,” unless there is an underlying “I,” in the first place. This underlying “I,” can never reach itself from below; that is, it can never reach itself by simply saying “I think, and I think that I think, and I think that I think that I think …” In other words, no process of self-awareness can grasp the “I.” The “I,” stands independent of all self-awareness, because it is the precondition of all self-awareness.

The “I,” is Pure Mind. The Mind is the process of that “I” becoming self-aware enough to say “I think, therefore I am.” Therefore, the Mind is a presupposition of Pure Mind.

This is demonstrated in my diagram, where one singular Pure Mind emanates into all possible Minds, and conversely, where all possible Minds presuppose Pure Mind as their eternal precondition.

If it isn’t clear enough already: Mind and Pure Mind are ontologically the same. Both are fundamentally consciousness. The only difference is the configuration of consciousness. Mind is consciousness folding in on itself, to the point of becoming self-conscious, while Pure Mind is consciousness laid out flat, such that it is not self-conscious. Therefore, “Mind” is just “Pure Mind,” becoming aware of itself.

But what about Matter? Though this wasn’t explicitly handled in part I, it was implicitly referred to in axioms I and II. “Matter,” is the everyday world we interact with in our lives–the world of physical objects existing in Space and Time. This world, however, is nothing more than a mental construct, because all there is to this world is Space and Time, and these things are nothing more than mental constructs [as per axioms I and II].

Therefore, what we call “Matter,” is nothing more than a construct of “Mind.” These constructs, in turn, is just the structure by which “Mind,” exercises self-awareness. That is to say, Space and Time are not just by-products of self-awareness, they are essentially self-awareness in action. “Matter,” is essentially “Mind,” in action.

But, what is the self-awareness of “Mind,”/what is “Mind” in action, other than the very self-awareness/action of “Pure Mind”? After all, “Mind,” is nothing more than pure awareness becoming aware of itself. In other words, everything about Mind’s power of self-awareness is nothing more than the process of Pure Mind folding in on itself.

Therefore, Matter, which is essentially Mind in action, is essentially nothing more than Pure Mind. Specifically, the Space-Time world we call the material world (i.e., “Matter”), is nothing more than a visualization of the internal contents of Pure Mind. Matter is Pure Mind’s reflection, made possible via Mind. In other words, Mind is a means by which Pure Mind can see itself reflected in the form of Matter. (the pure potentiality of Pure Mind [the Void] is represented in the form of the infinite creativity of the material Universe).

But what about Monad? This was not referenced to at all in part I, but I will include it here nonetheless.

Monad is nothing more than the abstraction of Matter–the extrapolated notion of non-relative, non-individuated unity. Monad is the abstraction that Mind reaches when it recognizes that Matter (Space-Time) is relative to the reference point of a given observer. Monad is what happens when you eliminate relativity from Matter–it is the abstraction of a realm where Space-Time is no longer relative, but exists as an Absolute identical unit.

Monad is the idea of Matter perfected, and thus a perfection of the reflective power of Matter to reflect the likeness of Pure Mind. Therefore, Monad is the perfected reflection of Pure Mind. This is evidenced by the fact that the idea of a realm where Space-Time is no longer relative, but is all identical to itself, is as close as our intellects can get in trying to grasp the concept of a Spaceless, Timeless entity such as Pure Mind. Monad is as close as our Minds can get to grasping Void.

The overall lesson here is that what we call “Mind-Matter-Monad,” is a process of self-knowledge/self-awareness–a means by which “Pure Mind,” knows itself. This becomes even more evident in my other posts.

How it Connects to Part II

In part II, I provided multiple definitions for all of the metaphysical entities which are displayed in my diagram. I will go over all of these definitions, and expand on the ones which need further explanation, while leaving the ones that speak for themselves alone.

Pure Mind

• Definition 1: The function of a subjectivity which does not objectify itself (i.e., the function of awareness without self-awareness).
  • Explanation: as stated in the previous section, “Pure Mind,” is a “pure subjectivity,” which does not objectify itself.
• Definition 2: That which Mind is the objectification of. Also, that which Matter is the visibility/appearance of.
  • Explanation: as stated in the previous section, “Matter” is a visualization of “Pure Mind,” and “Mind,” is the process of “Pure Mind,” becoming self-aware.
• Definition 3: The metaphysical stage at which no Time, no Space, no Causality, and no Individuation exists.
  • Explanation: Pure Mind is the metaphysical stage independent of self-awareness. Insofar as Time and Space are essentially self-awareness in action, Pure Mind is the stage independent of Time and Space. Insofar, as Causality and Individuation are products of Time and Space, Pure Mind is also independent of Causality and Individuation.

Mind

• Definition 1: The function of a self-objectifying subjectivity (i.e., the function of recursive self-awareness).
  • Explanation: speaks for itself, in light of the previous section.
• Definition 2: That which Matter is the visibility/appearance for.
  • Explanation: Matter is the visibility of Pure Mind, for Mind. Mind is the means by which Pure Mind can see itself reflected in Matter.
• Definition 3: The metaphysical stage at which Time, and Time alone, is “introduced” into the metaphysical scene.
  • Explanation: Mind = self-awareness in action. Self-awareness in action is essentially expressed via Time and Space. Time, and Time alone, corresponds to the introspective [interior] side of self-awareness (Mind). The conjunction of Time and Space corresponds to the extrospective [exterior] side of self-awareness (Matter). When you are aware of yourself within the context of immediate awareness (detached from all other senses), what is the one thing you are aware of? Time.

Matter

• Definition 1: The function of empirical (posteriori) perception.
  • Explanation: direct experience of Matter is sensorial (i.e., given to us via concrete perception).
• Definition 2: That which Monad is the abstraction of. Also, the concrete mode of cognitive awareness of a self-objectifying subjectivity (i.e., empirical, posteriori epistemology which corresponds to the observation of the world as a divisible, quantitative, discrete phenomenon [individuated Space, Time, and Causality]). Put simply, in Matter, Space, Time and Causality are all treated as discrete quantities.
  • Explanation: Matter = Space-Time = (extrospective) self-awareness in action. Space-Time is relative to the reference point of the observer. Therefore, Matter is relative to the given Mind which corresponds to it (this is visualized in my diagram, where every Matter corresponds one-to-one to each Mind).
• Definition 3: The metaphysical stage at which Space is “introduced,” into the metaphysical scene. Furthermore, it is the metaphysical stage at which, due to the conjunction of Space and Time, Causality is made possible and thereby “introduced,” into the metaphysical scene. Moreover, it is also the metaphysical stage at which, due to the conjunction of Space and Time, Individuation is made possible and thereby “introduced,” into the metaphysical scene.
  • Explanation: speaks for itself.

Monad

• Definition 1: The function of rationalist (a priori) perception.
  • Explanation: Monad is not something which can be proven scientifically, it is a philosophical abstraction.
• Definition 2: The abstraction of Matter which only retains the formal and universal aspects thereof. Also, the abstract mode of cognitive awareness of a self-objectifying subjectivity (i.e., rationalist, a priori epistemology which corresponds to the observation of the world as an indivisible, qualitative, non-discrete phenomenon [non-individuated Space, Time, Causality]). Put simply, in Monad, Space, Time and Causality are all identical.
  • Explanation: Monad = Matter – relativity = Space-Time – relativity. In other words, Monad is the abstraction of Matter beyond the relativity of a given reference point. Monad represents a realm where Space-Time is Absolute, as opposed to relative.
• Definition 3: The metaphysical stage at which Individuation is suspended, while leaving Space and Time intact (insofar as Causality requires individuated Space and Time, Causality is also suspended). Therefore, it is the metaphysical stage at which Space and Time are (erroneously) attributed to Reality as Absolute properties. Nevertheless, in this error, “Monad,” represents “Pure Mind’s” highest level of discursive self-reflective awareness. In other words, “Pure Mind,” can only reflectively know itself through the bounds of Reason, and Reason distorts the fundamental non-spatial, non-temporal nature of “Pure Mind.” “Monad,” represents the metaphysical position of “Substance Monism,” while “Pure Mind,” represents the metaphysical position of “Non-Dual Idealism.” The former is approximate to the latter, but is a distortion (in fact, inversion) of it nonetheless, because despite its best efforts “Substance Monism,” inherently carries with it the metaphysical baggage of Space and Time. Substance Monism doesn’t suspend Space and Time, it just extrapolates unity from them.
  • Explanation: speaks for itself.

Besides the definitions, part II included a discussion of the topographical analogy.

In this analogy, Pure Mind was likened to a 3-D surface when laid out flat. Mind, in turn, was likened to the process of that 3-D surface folding in on itself.

Since the surface is consciousness, when it is flat out, it is not conscious of anything in particular–rather it is one with all (experiences all things everywhere at all time in as intimate a manner possible). When the surface folds in on itself, the folded-in part becomes disassociated from the rest of surface-at-large, and becomes an individual “mind.” The experiential content of the surface-at-large (the surface which experiences all things everywhere at all times in as intimate a manner as possible) becomes obfuscated by the dissociative process that occurs in the part of the surface which folds in on itself. Therefore, the individual “mind,” no longer experiences the rest of Pure Mind.

The part of the surface which folds in on itself creates a dip in the surface, That dip can be likened to the process of “Mind-Matter-Monad,” visualized in my updated ontological diagram.

How it Connects to Part III

Part III explores the connection between the definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and “Pure Mind.”

That post pretty much speaks for itself, but the one thing which was stated on it that requires further explanation is the part which claims that God/Pure Mind supersedes and transcends Reason.

This is visualized, albeit somewhat implicitly in my ontological diagram.

Mind-Matter-Monad is the process by which Pure Mind knows itself. What we call “Reason,” (as exemplified in the PSR), is identical to this process of self-knowledge. In other words, “Reason” = Mind-Matter-Monad process. This was demonstrated in part IV, in our discussion of the fourfold root of the PSR.

Ultimately, Reason is the means by which self-awareness is rendered intelligible. Pure Mind’s self-knowledge is crystallized in the form of the PSR (i.e., in the form of Mind-Matter-Monad).

Therefore, this means that Pure Mind, in itself, transcends the PSR. Pure Mind, in itself, transcends Reason.

How it Connects to Part IV

Part IV discussed the PSR and the POP, namely how each principle grounds an aspect of my ontological system.

You will, however, have noticed that none of the four forms of the PSR grounds the existence of Pure Mind. That’s because Pure Mind is the substratum of the PSR. The PSR cannot ground the thing from which it is even possible.

This substratum-substrate relationship between Pure Mind and the PSR is obvious only in retrospect.

Take, for instance, the fact that the PSR grounds Mind. Mind, itself is, as stated above, a presupposition of Pure Mind.

Take, for instance, the fact that the PSR grounds Matter. Matter, itself is, as stated above, a process of extrospective self-awareness. In other words, Matter presupposes a Mind which is aware of it. There is no Matter unless there is a Mind to perceive it. This Mind, in turn, presupposes Pure Mind. Or, if you don’t like that line of argument, consider the following: Matter is an appearance for Mind. But, if Matter is an appearance for Mind, then what is it an appearance of? The answer is Pure Mind. Therefore, Matter too, is a presupposition of Pure Mind.

Take, for instance, the fact that the PSR grounds Monad. Monad is nothing more than the abstraction of Matter. Therefore, Monad is linked to Matter, which is linked to Mind, which is linked to Pure Mind–just like my diagram suggests.

Conclusion

This post should have wrapped up most loose ends in my metaphysics.

This series, however, is not yet over.

Over the course of the next few, final posts I will be covering a range of 4 topics, all in an attempt to address specific questions.

The topics are:

1. the advantages associated with using the PSR as a theoretical foundation for idealism,
2. the question of what it means for “Matter,” to be a visibility for “Mind,” (and the implications associated with this view)
3. the exact nature of “Pure Mind,” within the context of this system (beyond merely its definition as a function of the negation of subjective self-objectification)
4. the question of what it means for “Mind,” to only occupy unindividuated Time,

Topic 1 will take one post to discuss adequately. Topic 2 will take two posts to discuss adequately. Topic 3 will take two posts to discuss adequately. Topic 4 will take one post to discuss adequately. In total, I will conclude this series with 11 instalments.